Greetings! With the recent passage of An Amendment to the UCFA, the Department of Justice is now responsible for managing Civilian Firearm Certification Trainings. In the interest of the public, I wish to gauge the general opinion on a few topics to determine the best way to move forward.
First Question - Should the Firestone Firearms Commission host more CFCTs?
Currently, the FFC hosts one (1) class per month. This typically allows anywhere from 15-25 new licenses per class. However, it has long been debated as to whether or not more individuals should have the opportunity to posses a legal firearm.
Pros:
More people will be able to obtain a legal firearm, thus providing more civilian defense when law enforcement is not immediately present.
The potential for more frequent classes allows for non-American time zones to receive classes.
Cons:
Increasing the amount of firearm licenses also has a strong potential to increase the amount of abuse caused by said licenses.
The value of a CFL will depreciate as more people obtain them
- One Class per Month (current system)
- Two Classes per Month
- Three+ Classes per Month (unlikely but interested in your opinions)
Second Question - Should the developers implement a system that allows law enforcement to send a “CFL Revocation” request through the in-game records database?
On behalf of the FFC, I would highly support this implementation. Currently, the only way to request a CFL be revoked is to message myself or another voting member of the FFC. If the development team would implement a system that allows a law enforcement officer to automatically request a CFL revocation which would then notify the FFC of such, it would streamline our process and quickly halt abuse of a CFL. The only issue that I foresee is that it may be difficult to create the necessary entities to implement such a feature.
- The developers should implement this!
- Absolutely not!
Question Three - Do you approve of the Firestone Firearms Commission?
Thanks for your time, and be sure to reply with feedback or supplementary ideas!
2 Likes
The one class a month system has worked excellently for years. The amount of legal firearms abuse is almost none due to the one month system allowing us to control the small portion of people who get new licenses each month. Increasing the amount of classes will certainly increase abuse. Why fix a system that isn’t broken?
2 Likes
I agree and disagree. I think the system we have works, but we could improve. We revoke less licenses and POST revokes certifications, so I don’t see why a potential one or two people should restrict the rest of the state from being able to obtain a legal firearm.
1 Like
One person is all it takes to rain down hell for a few hours or days while we sort out their license.
1 Like
2 a month sounds perfect to me.
1 Like
Even if there were three classes a month, I doubt abuse would be high due to background checks, and also who wants to sit through that class just to have their licence revoked?
1 Like
Just a reminder: The government’s main job is to protect the people, not represent them.
1 Like
Probably because one class per month still makes it really hard to get for tons of citizens.
1 Like
uhhhh what? The citizens elect senators and representatives to REPRESENT them do they not??
1 Like
Strongly agree with keeping this current system. People should be patient, and we don’t need more chances of CTFC abusers.
2 Likes
And their main job is to not represent them, but protect them. Representing them comes second.
1 Like
Those of you who do not approve, it would be awesome if you could let me know why (you are welcome to use an anonymous account if you’re not comfortable on your main account, but I assure you that there will not be repercussions for expressing your opinion). The only way we can improve is by identifying our mistakes.
1 Like
There has never been a case of firearms abuse due to lack of background checks, to my knowledge. Most abuse comes out of stupidity or people who lose their job then go on a spree.
1 Like
1 a month is good | Change My Mind
2 Likes
I think this is a good and bad idea. Good side its under a responsible “area”
1 Like
The only reason I do not approve of the FFC is because getting a firearms license is like escaping from Alcatraz. Not many people can. People without malice intentions, however. FDOT has just recently allowed employees to carry a firearm after signing a contract etc. Just today, one of our employees was held at gun point and couldn’t do anything as they don’t have CFL. I feel like the CFL should be based off of realistic standards, not whether or not the person is known within Firestone. I’d be happy to go more in depth into this via Discord. Jarhead#0365 Please do contact me and I’ll explain more and why I think what I think.
I appreciate the concern! Your case is an isolated incident, which I will not discuss here as to protect your privacy.
1 Like
Like I said, I can explain more in DM’s if you’d like. I just didn’t want to have a whole essay on this post.
1 Like